At the risk of taking this thread even further off at a tangent, may I ask what you mean by that statement? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Printable View
At the risk of taking this thread even further off at a tangent, may I ask what you mean by that statement? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Oh I agree with that Tribesman, my view is more of a personal philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Israel, like many other countries, simply uses or cries "international law" when it would be to its favor like the case of Hezbollah crossing its borders and kidnapping its soldiers. The same "international law" is discarded when it doesn't suit the needs, like the expulsion of 700000 Arabs.
Also, certain countries will always have the "international law" more strictly imposed on them than others (say Iran).
Anyway, I can just imagine the outrage by non-Western peoples.
"What! you come and conquer nearly the entire world, take all the resources, leave it in shambles, and then make this 'international law' which you are free to interpret as to suit needs to protect yourselves!" :laugh4:
How are soldiers "kidnapped" when the two sides are understood to be at war with each other? Surely they are captured, not kidnapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Gawain is referring to the fact that, absent an overarching authority capable of enforcing those "laws" in a manner like unto a civil government enforcing its own code of laws, "International Law" is really more of a series of gentleperson's agreements that are enforceable only to the extent that a coalition of other nations is/would be willing to band together to enforce them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Hypo example: UN passes a resolution condemning the actions of the Bush administration in Iran and calling for Bush to stand trial at the international court in The Hague for his actions. Bush administration then tells UN to go urinate vertically up a rope. How does the UN then enforce this "international law" as passed by the UN body?
2nd hypo example: Argentina decides that its territorial waters include all those within 325 nautical miles of its coast. It then patrols and enforces this "border" threatening to sink any vessel that trespasses this boundary to fish or otherwise claim resources. This new limit is much larger than those accepted under codified "international law" -- but what's to stop them?
Also note:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent McKeever, Columbia Law School faculty
There are those who argue that international law should be as equally binding as municipal law, in that all laws are ultimately an expression of the will of the "individual members of a common polity, bound by a common rule of agreement or custom," but in practice the enforcement issue is vastly different. Gawain is not the first to scoff at referring to it as "law."
Thanks Seamus, for your explanation. I can see where the view derives, though I don't agree with it.
:bow:
I'd pick up the argument, but what's the point. :tired:
Yes thank you as thats exactly what I meant. Law without the ability to enforce it is no law at all.Quote:
Thanks Seamus, for your explanation. I can see where the view derives, though I don't agree with it.
I understand the logic behind this statement, as I understand that Israel and Hezbollah were at it for months beforehand, but I am strictly taking the Israeli (and American) point of view. This is how the Israeli government characterized Hezbollah's actions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
i completely agree that international law is unenforcableQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
do you think it would be better with no "international law" at all? (im actually interested, even if a law isnt enforcable, it might discourage actions that would violate the law)
I think it must be yours thats failing. Either that or you lack reading comprhension.
So no doubt you can find some relevant documentation that will back up your claim for the benefit of those that are unable to comprehend what is explicitly written concerning the partition of the land and the creation of the arab and Israeli states in Palestine .
Though you might have some difficulty as there is none that support your position .
Hence......Absolute rubbish Gawain as usual , has your memory failed you again . It is quite explicit that no part of trans jordan shall be the included in the territory allocated for the creation of either the Isreali state or the Palestinian state .
You do get the key word there don't you ? I shall assume you know from whence that statement comes as I know you have read it many times before .
So which is it , do you not understand the word either or is your memory faulty ?
Yes when they made the second partion and decided to name the westbank Palestine. The orignal partion had Arab Palestine(Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel)
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh I see , so the partition you are on about is not the partition that happened , its one that exists only in your mind , unless of course you can find any historical document that woud lend any credence whatsoever to your claims about the splitting of the mandated lands along the river as a creation of a Jewish or arab Palestinian state , which of course unless you want to invent some documentation you cannot do , can you Gawain .:laugh4:
After a long absence you come back with the same old long disproven rubbish , you do remember that it is long disproven rubbish don't you ?:inquisitive:
Yes the recent rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza prove you are quite correct.
Of course I am correct Gawain , now would you like to examine the example that falls into the second category , you should know it , as after all it is your tax dollars that is subsidizing it .
Tribesman, I think Gawain does have a slight point about Jordan. I expect it was a measure to curtail Israeli expansion on one level or another. You are however correct in that Palastine was never intended to be a purely Jewish state.
Oh, and Gawain, just so you know, In my last post I was refering to post WWII. Which makes your point defunct.
On the subject of International Law, it is binding so long as all countries involved are signed up to the relevant treaty. Which is why the US can use cluster bombs and napalm with impunity. As to who enforces it, in all honesty I think the UN is more successful than post Western security forces. At least they know "who done it."
Tribesman, I think Gawain does have a slight point about Jordan.
Not at all , he is following the propoganda from the revisionist Zionist movement , the creation of Jordan/trans-jordan is a seperate issue .
His statement.....The "Palestinians" already had their own state and it was called Jordan who lost territory(Judea) to Israel in the war.
......is absolute rubbish .....it states quite clearly in black and white that no part of trans- Jordan shall be included in the creation of the either the Jewish or Arab state , since it states absolutely that Jordan is not and shall not be the arab state to be created in Palestine under the partition into an arab state and Israeli state then it is clearly absolute bollox for him to try and claim that the proposed arab state had already been created .
Oh, and Gawain, just so you know, In my last post I was refering to post WWII. Which makes your point defunct.
Defunct ??????thats a bit mild ....
Oh you mean like Kosovo?
I see , so ....How about Britain, Spain , Portugal, France, Belgium and just about every other developed country on the face of the earth which developed country annexed kosovo ?
Or for more defunct rubbish ......Besides that all of Israels wars were defense wars
That is not true is it . Is there the usual pattern emerging yet again ?
You do know that you are not supposed to post information that you know is false don't you Gawain:laugh4:
Question of interpretation Tribesy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
If we take a brief list of the major conflicts (smaller raids/reprisals both ways and terrorist strikes far too numerous to play with)
1948-1949:
Immediately after Israeli independence was declared, all of the neighboring Arab states attacked. Israel claims this, and any territory occupied as a result of this conflict, as a defensive war and gains therefrom. Arab opponents of Israel view a) the UN creation of Israel, b) Israel's declaration of its statehood independently of the creation and declaration of a concurrent Palestinian state, and c) Israel's assumption of control of lands larger than those granted by the UN decision as acts of aggression.
1956:
Israel struck at Egypt, claiming that they did so to forestall an attack by Nasser's forces following the nationalization of the Suez canal. UK and French forces siezed the canal itself. Israel claims this as a "defensive" action, but most sources agree that it was defensive only in strategic terms and was not directly precipitated by Egypt's actions. Gaza strip and some areas of Sainai were not returned to Egyptian control.
1967:
Israel struck Egypt and the other Arab states by surprise, smashing their opposition quickly and decisively. Israel claims to have done this as a "stop-punch" to an impending Arab assault. Mobilization efforts by the Arab states, the closing of the Gulf of Aquaba, the positioning of the military forces facing Israel etc. support this assessment.
1973:
Egypt and Syria struck Israel in a surprise attack that came within a few days effort of demolishing Israel. Israel mobilized only just in time to stave of the Egyptian attack and retake most of the Sainai. Hard to claim this as anything but a defensive struggle on the part of Israel. Egypt was, in their eyes, attacking an invader still perched on their territory.
1982:
Israel invades Lebanon to destroy the PLO. Israel claims this was a defensive effort to stop/curb PLO attacks on Israel from bases in Lebanon. Lebanon, the PLO, and Hezbollah say otherwise.
One could, conceivably, label all of these conflicts as defensive efforts on the part of both sides in each. :laugh4:
And only as long as they decide to honor said treaty. Treaties are nothing more than gentlemens agreements.Quote:
On the subject of International Law, it is binding so long as all countries involved are signed up to the relevant treaty
Is Jordan part of Palestine? Is Israel part of Palestine? Have you read the Baflour declaration? It says nothing of a partion only that the Jews will have their homeland in Palestine. It doesnt say in part of Palestine. Are you now trying to clain that Jordan wasnt part of Palestine?Quote:
So no doubt you can find some relevant documentation that will back up your claim for the benefit of those that are unable to comprehend what is explicitly written concerning the partition of the land and the creation of the arab and Israeli states in Palestine .
I said it was proposed I never said it was implemented. Are you now trying to claim it wasnt even proposed?Quote:
Oh I see , so the partition you are on about is not the partition that happened , its one that exists only in your mind , unless of course you can find any historical document that woud lend any credence whatsoever to your claims about the splitting of the mandated lands along the river as a creation of a Jewish or arab Palestinian state , which of course unless you want to invent some documentation you cannot do , can you Gawain .
What point would that be?Quote:
Oh, and Gawain, just so you know, In my last post I was refering to post WWII. Which makes your point defunct.
At least I post information and not just snide remarks like some here.Quote:
You do know that you are not supposed to post information that you know is false don't you Gawain
Says you. Of course you never back anything up.Quote:
After a long absence you come back with the same old long disproven rubbish , you do remember that it is long disproven rubbish don't you ?
Have you read the Balfour declaration?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
HM's government will try their best to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.
Therefore, if creating such a homeland will result in the curtailment of civil and religious rights of other communities in Palestine, said homeland will not be created after all, and Britain can still claim to have kept its promise to the Zionists.
At least I post information and not just snide remarks like some here.
But if the information is false then what sort of response does it deserve ?
Says you. Of course you never back anything up.
Errrrrrr....Gawain , we have been through this all many times before , I don't need to back anything up since you already know it is true , or have you forgotten the swathes of documentation concerning the creation and partition that have already been posted .
That is why when you make a ridiculously innaccurate claim all I have to do is ask for you to post some historical document that will show that your claim is not false , and you know you cannot post something to back up your claims since you know that what you have written is false but are trying it on for the hell of it .
Have you read the Balfour declaration?
He has , and the early drafts of it , and the white paper , green paper , non-paper , revised paper , the letters, agreements , correspondance , inquiries , commisions , settlements ....... It is just that historical documentation on the topic tends to be at odds with his personal take on the subject .~;)
Of course you dont and you never have. Ive postwed plenty in the past that backs up my claims . It seems you have a selective memory.Quote:
I don't need to back anything up since you already know it is true , or have you forgotten the swathes of documentation concerning the creation and partition that have already been posted .
More of your BS. Again are you trying to claim that there never was a propsal to split Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state?Quote:
That is why when you make a ridiculously innaccurate claim all I have to do is ask for you to post some historical document that will show that your claim is not false , and you know you cannot post something to back up your claims since you know that what you have written is false but are trying it on for the hell of it .
More of your BS. Again are you trying to claim that there never was a propsal to split Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state?
read what you wrote Gawain and read what I wrote , if you have difficulty remembering what you wrote here it is , written by Gawain......The "Palestinians" already had their own state and it was called Jordan who lost territory(Judea) to Israel in the war.
That is rubbish , following on with.....Yes when they made the second partion and decided to name the westbank Palestine. The orignal partion had Arab Palestine(Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel)
which is also surprisingly ........rubbish .
So before you call BS over claims that I have not made examine the BS claims that you have made and see why your claims are undoubtably of the BS variety .
So I repeat Gawain , can you find any historical documentation whatsoever to support the claims you make ?
If not then stop making them ...again and again .:juggle2:
No that is the truth. Maybe you can tell the difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian by meeting them but I doubt anyone else here can.Quote:
......The "Palestinians" already had their own state and it was called Jordan who lost territory(Judea) to Israel in the war.
That is rubbish
No its simply the truth.Quote:
That is rubbish , following on with.....Yes when they made the second partion and decided to name the westbank Palestine. The orignal partion had Arab Palestine(Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel)
which is also surprisingly ........rubbish .
Pretty funny from a guy who never sources or gives links to anything. I just moved and Im having a problem with my searchs. Ill post some as soon as I get it working. Now once more are you claiming there never was a proposal to split Palestine 75% arab and 25 % Jewish? And that Jordan represents 75% of Palestine and is an arab state?Quote:
So before you call BS over claims that I have not made examine the BS claims that you have made and see why your claims are undoubtably of the BS variety .
Well all this shouting of BS has PO me so another 24hr timeout.
Unlocked.
Play nicely.
No bashing each other.
Quote:
No that is the truth.
Play nicely .....so a simple question , is there a new definition of truth in Gawains world ?Quote:
No its simply the truth.
Tribesy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You've heard Gawain on this point before. Gawain has always maintained that there were no "Palestinians" prior to the 1948 conflict. He has consistently asserted that they were and are ethnic Arabs who happen to be living in a particular region and has suggested that, prior to 1948, they themselves did not think of/label themselves as Palestinian. You are, of course, free to believe that Gawain is incorrect, but his perspective on this has been pretty clear and consistent.
It also makes a certain amount of sense, since the partition of Arabia was arbitary, look at Iraq.
However, I think he is wrong. If anything the Jordanians are the "new" ones.
Oh, and you can tell the difference Gawain, they wear different shemaghs (head cloths).
Different, tribes, you see.
You've heard Gawain on this point before.
Yep and hear it again now .
Gawain has always maintained that there were no "Palestinians" prior to the 1948 conflict. He has consistently asserted that they were and are ethnic Arabs who happen to be living in a particular region and has suggested that, prior to 1948, they themselves did not think of/label themselves as Palestinian. You are, of course, free to believe that Gawain is incorrect, but his perspective on this has been pretty clear and consistent.
But that isn't what he said is it .
Jordan was not the "palestinian" state and not only were the people who (with military assistance to keep the locals in order) were given rule of that piece of territory not from there , they had no claim to that territory either .Quote:
The "Palestinians" already had their own state and it was called Jordan
They were claiming another piece of territory , which they were also not from .
The original partition didn't have arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine did it , and the only documentary evidence Gawain will be able to produce that "supports" that claim is a rather shoddy attempt from a revisionist website where they have taken a very widely published map of the partition and changed the names on it .(you would have thought they could have at leastmade an effort to change the colour scheme so it was less obvious which map they had chosen to alter)Quote:
Yes when they made the second partion and decided to name the westbank Palestine. The orignal partion had Arab Palestine(Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel)
but his perspective on this has been pretty clear and consistent.
Yes consistantly wrong , unless of course someone wants to write to the Knesset and tell them that their version of their history on their website is wrong , and Gawain is correct .
A wee bit off-topic but never the less relevant.
This map by T.E Lawrence is quite different from the way the Middle-east ulitimately was partitioned. The most notable difference being that Syria and Arabia is one state.
Also note that Palestine is a state.
Ofcourse this didn't work 'cause the French also wanted a piece of the pie and got Syria.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nce_map800.jpg
Interesting map Randarkmaan
Compare it with the SykesPiccot ones where palestine is the "allied condominium " , then compare both with those produced for the Mcmahon/Hussein agreement (though of course they were not produced as part of the agreement ,they were produced as what different people thought the vague borders of that agreement were) .
Finally compare with with the mandated borders and the amended mandate borders .
Its really a very interesting subject .
Further to Seamus (and Gawain) from that last post .
A leading Israeli newspaper is banning certain words and phrases from inclusion in discussions about Israel/Palestine , that phrase that Gawain is fond of throwing around (and any similar derivative ) is one of those banned, since it is meaningless and serves no purpose in any rational debate .:2thumbsup:Quote:
Gawain has always maintained that there were no "Palestinians" prior to the 1948 conflict.
Now , a leading Israeli scholar also has some rather choice words about the use of that particular phrase , but I think repeating them may just ever so slightly break forum rules .:laugh4:
Australian War Memorials list countries where soldiers fought.
In 1917 it wasn't called Israel, it was called Palestine.
"In October 1917 the Australian War Records Section assigned Hurley to document the Australian experience in Palestine. He arrived during a quiet period. The famous charge at Beersheba and the fight for Gaza had already occurred, while the war-winning offensive against the Turks in September 1918 lay ahead. "
"Attack on Beersheba
Beersheba, a heavily fortified town 43 km from the Turkish bastion of Gaza, was the scene of an historic charge by the 4th Light Horse Brigade on 31 October 1917. Beersheba anchored the right end of a defensive line that stretched all the way from Gaza on the Mediterranean coast. After two failed attempts to attack Gaza frontally it was decided to outflank it by turning the Turkish line around Beersheba. The attack was launched at dawn on 31 October but by late afternoon the British 20 Corps had made little headway toward the town and its vital wells. Lieutenant General Harry Chauvel, commanding the Desert Mounted Corps, thus ordered the 4th Light Horse Brigade forward to attempt to secure the position. Brigadier William Grant responded by ordering light horseman of the 4th and 12th Regiments to charge at the unwired Turkish trenches. Employing their bayonets as "swords" the momentum of the surprise attack carried them through the Turkish defences. The water supplies were saved and over 1,000 Turkish prisoners were taken. The fall of Beersheba thus opened the way for a general outflanking of the Gaza-Beersheba Line. After severe fighting Turkish forces abandoned Gaza on 6 November and began their withdrawal into Palestine."
Yes but just because it was called palestine it doesn't mean that people who lived there were Palestinians .Quote:
In 1917 it wasn't called Israel, it was called Palestine.
They were just people living in a province that was known to some as Palestine .
Actual real honest to goodness Palestinians came much later , 4 whole years later in fact when someone drew up a paper defining citizenship of somewhere called Palestine , then they became Palestinians .
Which is just ever so slightly earlier than the 1948 that Seamus wrongly attributes to Gawain , and a hell of a lot earlier than 1967 which Gawain normally insists is when they were invented by Arafat .
They arer not the people we refer to as Palestinians today. Or in 1948. Your speaking of the first ideas of Palestine becoming a nation. There was no real government and Palestinians certainly were not a peoples at this time. The common usage of the word "Palestinian" refers people who live in Palestine: Arabs (a "mixed race of Arabic speaking peoples"), Bedouins, Christians and Jews.Quote:
Which is just ever so slightly earlier than the 1948 that Seamus wrongly attributes to Gawain , and a hell of a lot earlier than 1967 which Gawain normally insists is when they were invented by Arafat .
Quote:
History did not begin with the Arab conquest in the seventh century. The people whose nation was destroyed by the Romans were the Jews. There were no Arab Palestinians then -- not until seven hundred years later would an Arab rule prevail, and then briefly. And not by people known as "Palestinians." The short Arab rule would be reigning over Christians and Jews, who had been there to languish under various other foreign conquerors, -- Roman, Byzantine, Persian, to name just three in the centuries between the Roman and Arab conquests. The peoples who conquered under the banner of the invading Arabians from the desert were often hired mercenaries who remained on the land as soldiers -- not Arabians, but others who were enticed by the promise of the booty of conquest.
From the time the Arabians, along with their non-Arabian recruits, entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was "ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations to which, when Palestine became a land of pilgrimage, a new admixture was added."1 Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.
John of Wurzburg lists for the middle era of the kingdom, Latins, Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians,Egyptians, Copts, Maronites and natives from the Nile Delta. The list might be much extended, for it was the period of the great self-willed city-states in Europe, and Amalfi, Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Marseillais, who had quarters in all the bigger cities, owned villages, and had trading rights, would, in all probability, have submitted to any of the above designations, only under pressure. Besides all these, Norsemen, Danes, Frisians, Tartars, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Nubians, and Samaritans, can be safely added to the greatest human agglomeration drawn together in one small area of the globe."2
Greeks fled the Muslim rule in Greece, and landed in Palestine. By the mid-seventeenth century, the Greeks lived everywhere in the Holy Land--constituting about twenty percent of the population-and their authority dominated the villages.3
Between 1750 and 1766 Jaffa had been rebuilt, and had some five hundred houses. Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Armenians and a solitary Latin monk lived there, to attend to the wants of the thousands of pilgrims who had to be temporarily housed in the port before proceeding to Jerusalem.4
"In some cases villages [in Palestine] are populated wholly by settlers from other portions of the Turkish Empire within the nineteenth century. There are villages of Bosnians, Druzes, Circassians and Egyptians," one historian has reported. 5
Another source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition (before the "more chauvinist Arab history" began to prevail with the encouragement of the British), finds the "population" of Palestine composed of so "widely differing" a group of "inhabitants" -- whose "ethnological affinities" create "early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages" (see below) -- that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine." In addition to the "Assyrian, Persian and Roman" elements of ancient times, "the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages."
. . . There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy . . . Turkoman settlements ... a number of Persians and a fairly large Afghan colony . . . Motawila ... long settled immigrants from Persia ... tribes of Kurds ... German "Templar" colonies ... a Bosnian colony ... and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres ... by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin ... a large Algerian element in the population ... still maintain(s) [while] the Sudanese have been reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century.
In the late eighteenth century, 3,000 Albanians recruited by Russians were settled in Acre. The Encyclopaedia Britannica finds "most interesting all the non-Arab communities in the country . . . the Samaritan sect in Nablus (Shechem); a gradually disappearing body" once "settled by the Assyrians to occupy the land left waste by the captivity of the Kingdom of Israel."6
The disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be "settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years" were in fact a "heterogeneous" community 7 With no "Palestinian" identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, no Arab identity either: "The people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race." 8
Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931
Moslems Chnstians Others
Palestine
Syria
Transiordan
Cyprus
Egypt
Hejaz-Nejd
Iraq
Yemen
Other Arabian
Territories
Persia
Turkey
Central Asiatic
Territories
Indian Continent
Far Eastern Asia
Algeria
Morocco
Tripoli
Tunis
Other African
Territories
Albania
France
Greece
Spain
United Kingdom
U.S.S.R.
U.S.A.
Central & South
America
Australia
Palestine
Syria
Transiordan
Cyprus
Malta
Other Mediterranean
Islands
Abyssinia
Egypt
Hejaz-Neid
Iraq
Other Arabian
Territories
Persia
Turkey
Central Asiatic
Territories
Indian Continent
Far Eastern Asia
Algeria
Morocco
Tripoli
Tunis
Other African
Territories
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
France
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece
Holland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
U.S.S.R.
Yugoslavia
Canada
U.S.A.
Central & South
America
Australia
Palestine
Syria
Egypt
Persia
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Rumania
Switzeriand
United Kingdom
U.S.S.R.
Languages In Habitual Use In Palestine circa 1931
Moslems Chnstians Others
Afghan
Albanian
Arabic
Bosnian
Chinese
Circassian
English
French
German
Greek
Gypsy
Hebrew
Hindustani
Indian dialects
Javanese
Kurdish
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Sudanese
Takrurian
Turkish Abyssinian
Arabic
Armenian
Basque
Brazilian [sic]
Bulgarian
Catalan
Chaldean
Chinese
Circassian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Flemish
French
German
Greek
Hebrew
Hindustani
Indian dialects
Irish
Italian
Kurdish
Latin
Magyar
Malayalam
Maltese
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Rumanian
Russian
Serbian
Slavic
Spanish
Sudanese
Swedish
Swiss
Syrian
Turkish
Welsh Arabic
Czech
English
French
German
Hebrew
Persian
Polish
Russian
Spanish
Yiddish
Source: Census of Palestine --1931, volume 1, Palesfine; Part 1, Report by E. Mills, B.A., O.B.E., Assistant Chief Secretary Superintendent of Census (Alexandria, 1933), p. 147.
1. Richard Hartmann, Palestina unter den Araben, 632-1516 (Leipzig, 1915), cited by de Haas, History, p. 147.
2. De Haas, History, p. 258. John of Wurzburg list from Reinhold Rohricht edition, pp. 41, 69.
3. F. Eugene Roger, La Terre Sainte (Paris, 1637), p. 331, cited by de Haas, History, p. 342.
4. Frederich Hasselquist, Reise nach Palastina, etc., 1749-52 (Rostock, 1762), p. 598, cited by de Haas, History, p. 355.
5. Parkes, Whose Land?, p. 212. See Chapters 13 and 14.
6. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. XX, p. 604.
7. Ibid.
8 .In a handbook, prepared under the direction of the historical section of the Foreign Office, no. 60, entitled "Syria and Palestine" (London, 1920), p. 56.
This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
Brooklyn, New York
E-mail to a friend
Source: "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, 1984
My my , thatas a big cut and paste that says ....nothing really .
I do like the list at the end though , oK apart from the fact that it duplicates languages to pad out its claims for those who don't actually bother to read it .
It does contain some real doozies , Latin ..hmmmmm.... a habitual language....if you go to Latin mass or use a scientific name for something .... But Irish ?? thats gotta be the best , whodathunk Palestine would be An gaeltacht , do you think it was grant maintained by the Free State :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So gawain could you provide a list of ethnic origins for Americans to show that Americans don't exist , or could you possibly put a Canadian and American next to each other and play spot the difference .
oh its just so lame , the same cut and pastes again and again , do you actually read them before you post them ?:inquisitive: